digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Police Officer Shoots 13-yr-old Boy Who Pointed A Gun At Him

chron.com — A police officer investigating reports about gunfire in a Pasadena (TX) neighborhood critically wounded a 13-year-old boy after the boy turned toward him with a pistol. The boy was life-flighted to Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston, with 3 bullet wounds in the right side of his lower back. He is reported to be in critical, but stable, condition.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Phyraxus, on 06/06/2008, -68/+23Sounds like children being children. It is unfortunate that the police officer had to fear for his life and shoot the boy.
    The mother should take better responsibility of locking up her firearms and teaching her children to respect them.
    • CryRightardCry, on 06/06/2008, -16/+28Stupid kid, simple story.
      Yeah, it's nice that you want to be all sweet, but at 13 this young idiot knows better than to be shooting guns in his driveway and to NOT drop it when the cops say so.
      Stupid kid who got f'n lucky.

      Is it enought to get some gun control?
      Eh, maybe if we shoot a few more.
      • smacksaw, on 06/07/2008, -12/+2Your post makes no sense. You start off by saying that he's stupid, and in your very next statement you say he knows better.

        Which is it?

        I can tell you personally that 13 year old kids are all stupid and they don't know better. That's why they're 13. Their brains are still 13 and a 13 year old's brain isn't fully developed.

        Your username is making me cry, but probably not for any of the reasons you intended.
        • Blandyman, on 06/07/2008, -0/+11He says that the kid is stupid, that at 13 years of age he SHOULD know better, but he most obviously doesn't, or else he wouldn't have done what he did.

          L 2 Reed, cocknose.

          And if at 13 you don't know that you shouldn't be wildly firing a gun in the open, or that when a COP tells you to stop, you instead point it at him... trust me, you're stupid, not "undeveloped".
        • Phyraxus, on 06/07/2008, -2/+1Actually blandyman, no where did Cryrightardcry say that the child SHOULD know better, he simply assumed that child knew better and called him an idiot when the child went against his alleged better judgment.

          "And if at 13 you don't know that you shouldn't be wildly firing a gun in the open, or that when a COP tells you to stop, you instead point it at him... trust me, you're stupid, not "undeveloped"."

          Who knows if the child even knew it was the police? We certainly haven't read the child's statement. In the article it says, "He didn't turn all the way around, but he turned toward the officer and the officer responded by shooting three or four times," Corbett said." maybe he had his back to the police officer and couldn't see who was shouting at him, or was frightened so much that he didn't know how to respond.
        • Linzee82, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2@Phyraxus - You're right that we haven't heard the kid's side of the story. I would like to point out that most of the time, the police start with, "Police! Drop the gun!" They are supposed to tell you that they are police officers and then give you the orders. Granted, we don't know for sure that it occurred in this situation, it's a little hard to assume they just said "drop it" and shot the kid.
      • Phyraxus, on 06/07/2008, -3/+2Are you really so presumptuous to say that you know what went through this child's mind and that he knows better?
        • docbob84, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1If, by 13 years old, he didn't know that he shouldn't point a gun at the police, I'm thinking he's not such a terrible loss.
      • WhiteRaven, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2CryRightardCry, make up your mind. The kid was old enough to know better, you said so yourself. So, he *chose* to abuse a right and endanger others. This is not a reason to strip us all of our rights.

        Freedom means that some people will make bad choices. That is the cost of freedom.

        If you don't think it's worth the price, find someplace to live where they don't let you have it.
    • GOVStooge, on 06/07/2008, -5/+32It has nothing to do with gun control. It has everything to do with parents who don't smack their kid upside the head when they fail to respect something deadly
      • DillonHinson, on 06/07/2008, -0/+9Amen. Anything a 13 year old kid does always comes back to the parents. Always. It seems parents are too afraid to "get tough" with their kids.
      • Phyraxus, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2I don't necessarily agree with corporeal punishment, but yes, the parents need to take responsibility for the development of their children.
    • Y0tsuya, on 06/07/2008, -2/+15If the mother did teach him but he still wanted to take it out and have some fun with it, then our gene pool won't miss him one bit.
    • Alexandru25, on 06/07/2008, -2/+22How the ***** is it "children being children"? When I was 13 the last thing on my mind was going around at 3am shooting guns.
      • Phyraxus, on 06/07/2008, -3/+2Can you say you never played with fire? or bb guns? is it really a stretch of the imagination to say a child wanted to play with a firearm? Especially a badass .38-caliber revolver?
        • Ajajadude, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4A stretch for anyone who doesn't live in the middle of nowhere, maybe. But when you live in a city or suburb, then yes, it's a bit of a stretch.
    • Spanktacular, on 06/07/2008, -1/+18Children being children would have been firecrackers. Not leathal weaponry like a handgun, you *****.

      He's old enough to know better, and his parents are apparently dumb enough not to keep the gun locked up with a trigger guard, yes. But, he's still a ***** for pointing a gun at an officer shouting orders to drop the gun.
      • punkcat, on 06/07/2008, -5/+2kids don't make the best decisions, the guy isn't a ***** for pointing that out.
      • Phyraxus, on 06/07/2008, -6/+1Are you really so presumptuous to say that you know what went through this child's mind and that he knows better?
        • Ajajadude, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5Way to copy and paste.
        • Phyraxus, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1@ ajajadude: The same argument deserves the same counterargument.
    • CeeAyy, on 06/07/2008, -1/+18" It is unfortunate that the police officer had to fear for his life and shoot the boy." -Phyraxus

      You can't be serious. A gun held by a child is somehow less lethal? Maybe you should sign up to be a police officer for a day or two and then tell me if you are just going to stand there as a child points a loaded weapon at you.
      • Phyraxus, on 06/07/2008, -4/+1I never said that it was less lethal. I don't understand how you deduced that from my statement. I said it was unfortunate that the officer had to fear for his life. It is also unfortunate that he shot the boy.
      • TopherT, on 06/07/2008, -6/+1Cops are not scared little girls, they are responsible for their actions. If they would show a little backbone and act on behalf of the public and not on their own skin from time to time, as their job entails, these types of shootings would be far less common. I say we take the guns away from everyday officers, certainly they use the taser enough already. If you don't have the stones to face down a 13 year old with a gun instead of shooting him, you shouldn't be armed.
        • cawpin, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5Yes, they should just allow themselves to be shot. How can you be that stupid?
        • stevealford, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2So a 13 year old firing a pistol in your neighborhood in the middle of the night couldn't be construed as a threat to the public? You think that the officer wasn't acting on the public's behalf? I guess you've never known any 13 year olds who shot someone, huh? You can't face down a 13 year old with a gun, they won't flinch... they think they're invincible.

          If you tell them you're the police and then tell them to put down the gun and they DON'T do it, then you keep yourself from being shot when they turn the pistol in your direction. You're not just preventing yourself from being shot, but also anyone else in the area. The cop had no way of knowing what the kid intended to do with the pistol, all he knew was that he wasn't cooperating and was about to point the pistol toward the cop. Topher, you need some lessons in reality.

          P.S. I abhor gun control and fully support the second amendment. Intelligent parenting and firearms education is vital.
        • Phyraxus, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1@ stevealford: The point is that we don't know the whole story. How are we sure that the police identified themselves as police. All we really know, due to evidence, is that the child was shot in the back. How could he possibly see the person who shot him or the uniform that the person was wearing?
      • TopherT, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1If you don't have the cahones to convince a kid with a gun to put it down rather than immediately and precipitously taking his life, policing is not for you. If you put me in that situation, I would not pull the trigger, in fact I would keep my gun unloaded just in case.
    • BinaryFragger, on 06/07/2008, -0/+15Children being children?
      *****, when I was a kid, I played Nintendo and rode bikes instead of aiming guns at cops.
      • urik88, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2It's the new "thing". You know?
        Looks like it makes you cool or something like that.
  • InvisibleInk, on 06/06/2008, -52/+46Why 3 shots in the lower back if the boy was pointing a gun at him? Shouldn't have been 3 shots to the stomach instead?
    • bossm4n, on 06/06/2008, -5/+112The kid turned on an armed officer after being instructed to drop his weapon. If it's the middle of the night and you're responding to gunfire and the person doing the shooting is turning toward you still holding the gun, are you going to wait until he's facing you before you open fire? The kid's lucky to be alive. Could have been three shots to the head.
      • bitterbug, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6Only if the cop was a bad shot. Police and Military train you to always shoot for center mass. It's a larger target, with lots of nice squishy organs to destroy.
        Even if the target is wearing body armor you're still going to stun them.
      • texaswolfman, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1So the officer says. Or maybe he just shot the kid in the back. Guess its the cops word against a thirteen year old with three bullets in his back.
    • Rockout, on 06/07/2008, -1/+33FTA- "He didn't turn all the way around, but he turned toward the officer and the officer responded by shooting three or four times," Corbett said.
      • alexforcefive, on 06/07/2008, -15/+2I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say he probably didn't add that part until someone pointed it out
    • GOVStooge, on 06/07/2008, -2/+35Turning to point a gun with the right hand can easily explain gunshots to the right-lower back.
      • tehbored, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1He only turned his upper body you mean? I guess that would make sense if the officer called to him.
    • spuddly, on 06/07/2008, -28/+5Sounds like a typical cop response - three warning shots in the back.
      • Frost9999, on 06/07/2008, -2/+20If someone points a gun at you - you shoot first.
        • maexn, on 06/07/2008, -14/+1the gun wasn't pointed at him, the boy was shooting at a fence, i don't see why the officer had to feel this threatened and shoot him 3 times. oO
        • Elliuotatar, on 06/07/2008, -6/+2Can I shoot first if it's a cop? I mean obviously if we're already pointing guns at eachother he's not going to wait to let me drop the weapon.
        • Linzee82, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3@maexn - FTA- "He didn't turn all the way around, but he turned toward the officer and the officer responded by shooting three or four times," Corbett said.

          I'm not gonna wait until the gunman has the gun centered to act. I'm going to defend myself as soon as I feel threatened. I'm sure that's what the cop was thinking, as well.

          Thanks, rockout, for the quick copypasta.
      • Dinosaur88, on 06/07/2008, -1/+11So you rather of the kid gotten shot in the head? Three shots in the back sounds a hell of a lot better than in the face. I'd like to see what you would do if a kid pointed a gun at you, and you knew at the same time of night that there was gunfire heard around the area where you found the kid.
    • SquireCD, on 06/07/2008, -0/+18The kid was in mid turn.
    • Zoltair, on 06/07/2008, -1/+16Kid's lucky it wasn't one shot to the head.....
    • wrboyce, on 06/07/2008, -9/+1and what's wrong with one through the shoulder? Disarmed, and it won't be fatal.
      • Orcmors, on 06/07/2008, -0/+12They were carrying handguns not snipers. You should always go for the biggest target. Harder to miss and less chance of fatality. Missing the shoulder could mean missing completely or even worse, a headshot.
        • brokencrystal, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1"They were carrying handguns not snipers. You should always go for the biggest target. Harder to miss and less chance of fatality. Missing the shoulder could mean missing completely or even worse, a headshot."

          Agreed, but once he hit his target, he should have stopped firing. The kid had his back turned and he was only 13. One hit would take him down. If the kid turned back around and was able to point the gun at the officer again after taking a hit in the back, the officer could have fired again.
      • ISUCorndog, on 06/07/2008, -0/+9whats wrong is, at any distance of greater than say... 10 feet, handguns are extremely inaccurate. so a shot towards the shoulder could just as easily hit the heart, a lung, the head...

      • Rockout, on 06/07/2008, -0/+10Rent a gun. Go to the gun range. Pretend you're trying to shoot someone in the shoulder.


        Now, try to do the same thing while you are practically crapping yourself because you are in fear for your life, and see how often you hit the target.

        "Shoot 'em in the leg" comments are made by people who have never shot a handgun, much less under a high stress condition.
      • Kythas, on 06/07/2008, -0/+7Obviously you've never been in a situation where you're responding to an armed threat. There's something the police (at least the cops I knew when I was a cop) call the "pucker factor". That's when your ***** puckers up because you're scared *****. I knew a cop who fired three shots at a suspect who was no more than 5-8 feet away from him. He said he aimed center mass (which is where you're trained to fire - it's the fastest way to eliminate a threat. You NEVER shoot to wound) and hit him once in the leg. He cited the pucker factor in his poor marksmanship. Of course, we still gave him ***** about it.

        Cops aren't supermen. They have emotions and feel fear just like regular people do - in fact, they ARE regular people! They just chose law enforcement as a career, much like other people choose banking or working at McDonald's.

        If someone's shooting a gun, and then turns and begins pointing that gun at me after being told to drop it, I'm firing, too. Period. End of story.
        • bruce86, on 06/07/2008, -5/+1If someone can't do math in banking, we should fire them. If someone can't make burger we should fire them. If someone can't handle their gun in a stressful situation, we should give them payed leave?

          I think the officer in the story was in the right, but the "police are only human" excuse is totally *****. Don't be a police officer if you can only do your job when its easy. There is never a situation where you use a gun and it isn't stressful. So why are we giving these people guns when we know they are going to suck at it?
        • sugarazor, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5The McDonald's analogy was just to show that they're normal people who chose a career. It's a little ***** different when you're holding your life and someone else's in your hands... it's not math or burger assembly.
      • ChildeRoland420, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2@wrboyce, The main thing wrong with that is that a gun is a lethal weapon and shouldn't be used at all unless you plan on killing the person you're using it on.
    • Sumyunguy, on 06/07/2008, -0/+12The officer must have missed a few. Officers are usually trained to empty their weapon, or fire until the perp drops. That is why you usually hear reports of "Officers fired almost 100 rounds!" etc. Most police sidearms hold 15 rounds. If 3 units finally show up in a call, that is 6 officers...If the perp pulls a weapon or aims the weapon at the Officer the Officer is trained to fire until the perp drops. The other Officers are trained to fire if the other Officer fires, and keep firing until the perp drops. 6x15 = 90.
      • pyro789x, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4Right. That may seem shocking to some people, but if a police officer is at the point where he's shooting his gun (unless he's shooting at a tire or something) he's shooting to kill (or at least until he knows the other guy isn't a threat anymore). Police officers don't (usually) fire warning shots. That's what all that screaming is usually about.
      • Kythas, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2Not true. My firearms instructor at the academy instructed us that we should never need to fire more than two to three rounds to neutralize a threat. Two aimed center mass - if they're still standing at that point it's because they're wearing body armor or they're on PCP. In those situations you aim 18 inches higher and fire one more round.

        I've never personally known a cop who has ever emptied an entire clip when discharging their firearm. I know it's happened, but I've never known one who did.
  • scoetrain, on 06/06/2008, -8/+357Are we supposed to feel sorry for this little *****?
    • fr3ddie, on 06/07/2008, -2/+88No.
    • masterm1nd, on 06/07/2008, -39/+12No, you're suppose to hate police.
    • siobhankeogh, on 06/07/2008, -4/+74I know, right? What was the cop supposed to do? Stand there and say, "Oh, you're 13? My bad, go ahead and shoot me then!"
    • WafflesID, on 06/07/2008, -2/+44Why the hell isn't the title "Police Officer defends self by shooting 13-yr-old with a gun."

      I think he should finish the job and shoot the parernts in the ankles for being ***** and not raising their child properly.
    • Ladymongoose, on 06/07/2008, -1/+35"Two other teenagers who were present — a boy and a girl — were taken into custody. The girl kicked out a window of a patrol car after being placed inside, Corbett said.

      Sounds like a great bunch of kids.
      • PopcornDave, on 06/08/2008, -1/+6How ***** the patrol car if a teenage girl, in custody, can kick out the window?
    • Phyraxus, on 06/07/2008, -14/+1The lack of sympathy for the child is astounding.
      • DogHumpsMonkey, on 06/07/2008, -1/+14No, your lack of sympathy for the cop that was just doing his job and had to make a tough split second decision is astounding. The cop didn't create this situation. The dumb ass kid did.
        • Ladymongoose, on 06/07/2008, -1/+11And by 13, you should know that you don't point a gun at a cop. Or anyone for that matter.
  • Rabbittt, on 06/06/2008, -50/+9The reason stuff like this bothers a lot of people is because of the double standard that's been set for government and the public.. Why are police allowed to act in accordance to their PERCEPTIONS, while civilians are only allowed to act within the scope of government-defined REALITY? In other words, a cop can claim he perceived danger, and he will get the benefit of the doubt.. A civilian who claims the same defense is ridiculed and belittled for not applying REALITY to the situation.. Absurd!
    • Y0tsuya, on 06/07/2008, -2/+22Because the police deals with high-risk incidents everyday? If they let down their guard chances are good they won't have a long career.
      • Rabbittt, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1I think you missed my point.. The point is the double standard, not any particular action or situation.. It's about people and authority having different rights.. This makes little sense to someone who values individual rights..
        • Y0tsuya, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1I know what your point is. But the authorities by definition have different rights than citizens. That's how things work. If you don't like it maybe you can buy a small island in the Pacific to live on or something. But don't cry to authorities when you get raided by pirates.
    • senkmajer, on 06/07/2008, -2/+10Not true. I was jury foreman in a case where we convicted a man on the basis of the fact that he *tried* to use his car as a deadly weapon. The perception of the victim as well as the jury was that the victim perceived a real threat, though no actual harm was done.
    • diablozx9, on 06/07/2008, -1/+13Simple,
      The cop has to go there,, the perp chose to be there.
      also,, the cop is protecting the rest of the people around the area so
      that they can continue to choose what they want to do. The perp
      has taken everyones right to choose away from them by waving the gun around.
      • Rabbittt, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1I would understand your point more if there were never mistakes and the law was perfect, but that's not reality.. There is a huge gap in accountability between civilians and authority.. Authority should be held to just a high a standard as civilians, period.. There are going to be negative consequences to this, but that is one of the costs, sorry..
    • lamiaconfitor, on 06/07/2008, -1/+15How stupid are you, if a kid aimed a gun at you, you would still have the right to defend yourself. I can assure you the investigation would be extended greater if there weren't sufficient police and civilian witnesses. Or,are you just angry because the government raped you recently?
      • Rabbittt, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1I think you missed the whole point.. I made no judgment about this incident, I merely explained why people would be upset by it..
    • hmunkey, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4Dude, if someone pointed a gun at you and you shot them, you would not be going to jail.
      • ChildeRoland420, on 06/07/2008, -2/+4That really depends on which State you're in and whether the DA has a bug up his/her ass.
  • MattJF317, on 06/07/2008, -2/+183That's absurd. Everyone knows 13 year-olds are incapable of pulling a trigger.

    ..... wait, no they're not. Ok, so why was this wrong?
  • Chazx, on 06/07/2008, -47/+9Why do Americans have such a dangerous obsession with guns? Why should you have the right to bear them?
    • Evolutuon, on 06/07/2008, -2/+22To form a militia for any potentially justified revolt.
      • Frostek, on 06/07/2008, -10/+5How's that working out for you so far?
        • 140Suffolk, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3Very well.
        • triad203, on 06/07/2008, -2/+5We've done it before, and we'll do it again if it becomes necessary. A few hundred thousand men with tanks will never overcome 200 million with small-arms.
        • sugarazor, on 06/07/2008, -5/+3"A few hundred thousand men with tanks will never overcome 200 million with small-arms."

          Sure they will. Your handgun isn't really much of a match for clusterbombs. Not that I'm against gun-ownership, but the idea that citizens can overthrow the government worked when we were all toting muskets around.
        • triad203, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1@sugarrazor: I understand your point, but to me it is just an argument for individuals to be allowed to own proper weaponry.

          That superior firepower strategy isn't working out too well in Iraq, is it? Insurgency, guerrilla warfare, terrorism, call it what you will. If there are enough people pissed off about something, they can use small arms and low-grade explosives against those with tanks and they will still win, eventually. The nature of an insurgency is such that the occupying force can only sustain the occupation for a finite period of time, whereas the populace lives there and can continue indefinitely.
          The ONLY form of warfare to ever defeat a modern superpower is insurgency. If you doubt this, go read up on the US in Viet Nam, and the USSR in Afghanistan. Those examples are perhaps a bit skewed due to outside support, but no country exists in a vacuum, so they remain valid.
    • Pixelante, on 06/07/2008, -1/+14Why should you have the right to drive a car, when cars kill far more people than guns? Ride a bus.
      • ufia, on 06/07/2008, -4/+3We don't have a right to drive a car, we've been given the privilege to do so on certain conditions, only after some testing of our competencies. Which can be revoked all at time.
    • Birdie1111, on 06/07/2008, -2/+10We own guns legally because it is our constitutional right and because we can protect ourselves from a government takeover.
      Look at the countries that are now not free. First the government takes the guns, then takes over.!!
      • Zekarus, on 06/07/2008, -2/+3 *****, man, I always thought Australia was a great place to live.

        I guess I'll move over to America then.
    • Spanktacular, on 06/07/2008, -1/+10U.S. population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)
      1 idiot child pointing a handgun at a cop and getting shot for his stupidity.

      You're making a rather lopsided judgment of an entire nation of people based on a minuscule sampling of the population, aren't you? Television ratings use higher samplings for something far less important than making judgments about a people and their laws.
    • ChildeRoland420, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6We should have the right to bear arms because Self-Defense is one of the most basic of human rights, and just because you're government doesn't allow you that right doesn't mean that ours shouldn't.
      • banik2008, on 06/08/2008, -1/+0Your government should have taught you to spell.
    • Amiga500, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4So we don't get stuck with a government like China or Iran.
    • WhiteRaven, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2Chazx,

      Let me explain your problem. You have it backwards. Free citizens do not need to justify themselves. I don't need to answer your question as to why we should have guns. Instead, YOU need to come up with a damn good reason as to why they should be taken away.

      And just to head off any potential.... stupidity, allow me to point out that murder and assault etcetera is in fact illegal. It is illogical to make the tools that can be used in the commission of a crime illegal when the crime itself is illegal. We are covered.

      All people are free to do what they want as long as they do not harm others. All drugs should be legal, for example. And *possessing* a gun has never harmed anyone.

      I could tell you that I have a right to defend myself but as I said, that is simply answering a question that deserves no response. Liberty needs no justification. The mere fact that some people *want* guns is all the justification that is needed.
      • triad203, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1^ This. This right here.

        WhiteRaven wins the prize. Thank you.
    • STARTSOMETHING, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1Your comment is the reason, I still love America!
  • CbME, on 06/07/2008, -35/+9It is always a shame when anybody dies. The officer probably did the right thing, but he will have to live with this for the rest of his life. Kids are stupid, and I know I did dumb things when I was 13 albeit not this dumb, but kids do stupid things and it is a shame that he had to die.
    • PolarBearCa, on 06/07/2008, -0/+21You not only didn't RTFA, you didn't read the submitter's text either, did you?
    • Shadow120, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5Who died?
  • Nidy1, on 06/07/2008, -0/+63"Two other teenagers who were present — a boy and a girl — were taken into custody. The girl kicked out a window of a patrol car after being placed inside, Corbett said."

    I don't know why but this made me laugh.
    • theragu40, on 06/07/2008, -0/+22Snotty brat hangs out with snotty brat friends. Funny, but certainly not surprising.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 06/07/2008, -3/+7Probably because you aren't aware that there is regular glass in a police car window. It's not that surprising a feat.
    • Techeon, on 06/07/2008, -11/+2She was prolly pissed that the cop shot her friend. By that point I would kick out the window to try to get to my friend who had been shot too.

      I mean if I think about it then it probably went down like this.
      Boy was shot and then the two were being arrested. It takes some time for the ambulance to get there meanwhile the girl is sitting in the cop car knowing her friend had just been shot.
      • sugarazor, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5Well maybe her friend shouldn't have been SHOOTING A ***** GUN!

        *****, this incident should be played over and over for little brats... yeah, go out and ***** around, break the law, create danger for all of those around, think you're invincible and think you're "fighting the man" when you refuse a cop's orders and watch what happens - your little dumbass gets shot three times.
  • PolarBearCa, on 06/07/2008, -1/+96They used THIS headline because the police got there before it turned into "13 Year-Old Boy Accidentally Shoots Infant in Crib During Fence Target Practice".
  • whoreable, on 06/07/2008, -4/+108***** PARENTS SUCK!!
    • ichbeineinrcg, on 06/07/2008, -0/+20Agreed. That's why you always knock before you walk into the master bedroom. Scars you for life.
      • arcticblue, on 06/07/2008, -0/+12Don't, I repeat, DON'T go through what you think are blank VHS tapes either. Learned my lesson by looking for a blank VHS tape to do an English project on... It's been 10 years and I still can't forget what I saw.
        • dynelol, on 06/07/2008, -0/+12Holy *****, dude! That's awful! So did you make an awkward moment for them and tell them to start labeling tapes?
      • V2012, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4That joke was a more enjoyable read than the article. :D
    • dynelol, on 06/07/2008, -1/+10Well, "whorable", you shouldn't ***** your parents.
    • Pzycho, on 06/07/2008, -0/+7WE'LL SHOOT HIM LIVE!
  • DesertDude, on 06/07/2008, -58/+4US cops = *****

    • Duggan360, on 06/07/2008, -0/+16Shoot or be shot

      If i was that cop i know what I'd do and he made the right decision
    • theragu40, on 06/07/2008, -1/+14Woops, did you think you were going to get dugg up for your obligatory anti-police comment? Even on digg, people can see when the officer was in the right, you know. Police are authorized to use force when their life is threatened...and this kid had been firing a .38 all over the neighborhood. It's pretty reasonable to think that when he turns to point the gun at the officer who told him to drop it, he might take a shot. It sucks that the kid had to get shot, but mostly he's just lucky the cop didn't shoot to kill, which really would have been within his rights as well.
      • DesertDude, on 06/07/2008, -9/+1"Woops, did you think you were going to get dugg up for your obligatory anti-police comment? "

        Yes, it's what I live for. I wake up every day thinking, "God, please let this be the day I get dug up!", my eyes teary with hope and worry, my prayer beeds worn out. My dreams are crushed now, but one day - and it will be soon - I shall be...DUG UP. That I promise you.

        And I've been saying this all along: US cops are f*cking *****. Always have been, always will be. My comment was not just about this very incident, but about the sandwiches and cellphones (and sometimes just air) which cost many civilians their lives.

        It's interesting though to learn that theragu40 has emotional interest in being dug up. Always pick your words wisely here, son, lest the dig downs make you cry.
        • theragu40, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3Well I'm sorry you feel that way (and that you felt it necessary to hit me with a personal insult as well). If that's what you really believe, then so be it. But usually people make senselessly inflammatory comments like "cops = *****" when they're just trying to get their comment dugg up. A little masturbatory? Sure, but don't act like people don't do it.

          If you really think the kid was in the right here, then I completely do not understand your viewpoint, but I respect that that's what you think. You might consider finding a better way to express it though.
        • adminmatt, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1lol. now you feel a smarmy comeback will redeem you and get you dugg, but alas... wrong again.
        • DesertDude, on 06/08/2008, -2/+1@theragu: you call it senselessly inflammatory, I call it "long story short". Instead of writing something long and boring I just cut it down to a few words. Some might agree, some might not, but your reaction was to disregard my opinion as merely an attempt to get dug up, so it's natural for me to be annoyed by that. The cop might be a little right in this case, but it's an exception, and time and again we see US cops killing innocents needlessly, all out of sheer fear and terror for their own lives, something impossible not to view as cowardly.

          Sorry. Your opening line struck me as sarcastic, accusatory and militant; I misinterpreted. Guess it's because these kinds of replies abound here. My bad. Apologies.
    • Orsenfelt, on 06/07/2008, -0/+9Why, For using his training and securing his own survival? Cops get shot dead all the time,When responding to a call about gunfire and suddenly a gun is being pointed your way, You take it down.

      No matter what your stance on US Gun laws, This cop didn't do anything wrong.
    • iticu, on 06/07/2008, -0/+10How do you suggest they react to an armed boy refusing to drop his weapon then?
  • warlokaz2004, on 06/07/2008, -0/+158so lets see -- point a gun at a cop = get shot by a cop. Yeah thats about right.
  • YuriSakazaki, on 06/07/2008, -1/+185Last time I checked, if you point a gun at a cop you get ***** shot, whether you're 13 or not. Solution: DON'T POINT A ***** GUN AT A COP.
    • KonnayahaBoogie, on 06/07/2008, -1/+7My solution : Don't point a gun.
      • WhiteRaven, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1Sure, that's a valid option. In fact, it's the one I employ as I don't own any.

        I hope you're not suggesting that people be prevented from owning them if they want.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 06/07/2008, -0/+12also, DON'T ***** GIVE GUNS TO 13 YEAR OLDS!
      • loup, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6or you could teach your kids how to properly handle a gun and know the consequences of improperly using it.
        My dad had several guns in the house while my sister and I were growing up. None of the guns had any trigger or hammer locks to prevent them from being fired. I knew where ammunition was being kept and it was fairly easily accessible.

        I fired rifles, shotguns and handguns long before I reached 13 years old. Neither my sister nor myself would have ever dreamed of taking any of the guns in the house and playing with them like this kid was.

        • kirralin23, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1My son got his first rifle when he was eight. Both he and his sister go shooting with their dad. I don't shoot anymore because of a shoulder injury and other disabilities. They know all about gun safety. We keep our guns in safes.

          We have special rules for if you come across an unsecured weapon.

          1. Don't touch
          2. Tell the nearest adult so the adult can secure the weapon
          3. If the nearest adult wasn't mom or dad tell mom or dad.
          4. Mom or dad will insure that the weapon has been secured.
          5. We go out for ice cream.
          6. We go to the toy store and buy whatever you want.

          My son has actually had an opportunity to test the process. It works. You have to give a good enough incentive to tell that it overcomes curiosity, just to be on the safe side.
        • lamiaconfitor, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1at the same time, would you just give a gun to a child that old and not think twice about it? or would you prefer they only have it in their possession once they are with you? there is a diffrence between teaching your child gun saftey and having a 13 year old sleep with a .45 under his pillow.
    • jmp478, on 06/07/2008, -3/+8LET'S YELL SOME MORE IN CAPS!!
    • verkon, on 06/07/2008, -6/+6PLEASE HELP ME! MY CAPS KEY IS STUCK!
  • Wartyboskfapped, on 06/07/2008, -58/+1***** pigs.
    • Failchan, on 06/07/2008, -0/+19If someone was aiming a loaded gun at you, and you had a gun also, what would you do? Stupid *****.
    • Manguskahn, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2The kid was an idiot. Natural selection should have called for his death, but he got lucky.
  • TheBadWolf, on 06/07/2008, -12/+47Sounds like he got what he deserved.

    And it's ridiculous to blame the parents. The only person to blame is the kid. When you're thirteen, you can make your own decisions. He isn't an extension of his parents' will. He made a poor choice, and he paid for it.
    • theragu40, on 06/07/2008, -1/+18You wouldn't like to blame his parents for having an easily accessible .38 revolver lying around the house? Because that's certainly their fault. And the kid can make his own decisions, but good parenting earlier in life would have taught him that shooting a ***** gun towards neighbors' houses is the wrong thing to do, let alone pointing it at a police officer. Obviously that message never made its way through. Thus, the parents have failed.
      • TheBadWolf, on 06/07/2008, -6/+4Where does it say it was his parents' gun?

        And, come on, you've never disobeyed your parents? You've never outright ignored them? Or did you grow up exactly the way they planned? He is his own person, capable of his own decisions. Yes, parents will influence him, but they're not his puppet-master.
        • Hamletlere, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4As a parent, I can say I absolutely believe the parents are responsible. If you raise your children well, and take part in their life, and do your ***** job, they don't turn out to be cop killers.

          Absolving the parents whose job it was to raise a decent person is absurd. Patterns of behavior that are laid down in early childhood tend to carry through to the teen years. Sure, there will be some fights and rebellion... but in kids raised right that rebellion doesn't express itself as killing other people.
        • BlueDawg5678, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2While I agree that the parents hold a major responsibility in this case I also know that a parent can do everything right and the child still turn out to be a cop killer. Parents who do their best can still have kids who are hard hearted and make repeatedly poor choices leading them down a path of destruction.
      • crazygamer67688, on 06/07/2008, -4/+1i think the cop did the right thing, but he didnt SUCCESSFULLY point the gun at the cop....
        i mean, lets play the devils advocate for a second... What if teh kid was turning around and intendedto drop the gun when he saw the cop?
        but he shouldnt have played with the gun in the first place either
      • cawpin, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2I had "easily accessible" firearms in my house my entire childhood, as did my friends. Guess what? Our parents taught us not to mess with them and we didn't. It doesn't have anything to do with them being there, it has to do with parents teaching their kids what to do and what not to do.
    • Zoltair, on 06/07/2008, -0/+8Yea, his parents had 13 years to get it right, they failed.....They might not of been involved with the actual actions, but the kids mindset, ethics and morals are all developed through social contact, something the parents are can manage for the child's early development years. Yea, the parents failed, it about time society starting making them responsible for their offspring.
    • davidhallstrom, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1Come on everyone The Bad Wolfe is right. It's usually but not always the parents fault. Some kids are just bad.
  • agree2disagree, on 06/07/2008, -16/+3dumb ***** should just die
    • hogar983, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2Well... not "die", maybe make 'em wear a special hat so you know whom you're dealing with.
    • crazygamer67688, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1or a sign...
  • fragged23, on 06/07/2008, -2/+33I'm glad the kid didn't die. But honestly, common sense should be applied well before 13, and it doesn't make sense to raise a gun at an officer. I side with the cops on this one.
  • nyadney, on 06/07/2008, -4/+43Strange. Not long ago, a young boy was killed near me (crawford , NE) for that same reason. Not only did i never see a post on digg about it, but the officer who shot him got off completely free. Burried for a pointless article about a stupid kid who deserved what he got.
  • DiogenesJr, on 06/07/2008, -19/+7We must all be highly suspicious of the police at all times. We must scrutinize every detail of every incident in which they harm someone and we must hold them accountable for everything they do. So, for as much as it pains me to say this and without knowing all of the details of the case, on the surface it looks like the cops were right in this case.
    But let's not be naive, although it's speculation, this kid was probably looking for this only with a more fatal outcome.
    At least he wasn't handcuffed to a tree afterwards...
  • Abomonog, on 06/07/2008, -24/+2There used to be a time when a cop in America couldn't shoot unless he was shot at first. There was a good reason for this rule. Too many "gun toting" children were being killed and it was being discovered that said "guns" were often toys not having anything to do with a gun. Kid was shot in the back too? Kid hears the words, "DROP YOUR GUN!", turns to look too see who is yelling and gets shot for wondering who is yelling at him. Gotta protect the fence at all costs I guess. Probably find out that that's the kids point of view soon too. He only turned to see who was doing all the yelling.

    As far as I'm concerned, if you become a cop then your life is forfeit in the interest of protecting the civies. If that means you gotta take a bullet to find out if the gun the child is holding is real then so be it. Pity this happened in Pasadena. And pity our country has become such a bunch of ass-licking lemmings. Kid most likely would have dropped the gun a second later anyways. But hey, we gotta protect that fence at all costs.
    • FUR10N, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6No.
    • Ovalteen, on 06/07/2008, -0/+8The only ass-licking lemming here is you, who would prefer a cop get shot rather than their precious snowflake get injured because they threatened someone elses life.
      • Abomonog, on 06/07/2008, -6/+1this kid threatened a ***** fence. If that cop would have approached calmly and politely there would be one less kid in the hospital today. It's one thing to go around shooting up a neighborhood and quite another to take target practice on a fence (something I myself have done at least a dozen times by the time I was 13 and never had cop issues). I'm not saying the kid was right, but the cop was certainly in the wrong.

        The only two things that were in danger in this incident were the fence and the kid. And the kid was put in greater danger by the cop than his own hands. Once you people realize that the end DOES NOT justify the means then you will realize how wrong this cop really is. A properly trained cop never fires the first shot. He never has to guess about his danger, because he is well trained enough to know that a kid taking target practice with a 38 probably knows little about gun safety and rabid cops and doesn't realize that so much as being startled by a shout from behind his back will get him killed. But then again all children are born with eyes in the back of their heads, right?
        • Ovalteen, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3I'll tell you what, you stand behind a fence, and I'll shoot at it with a .38 caliber handgun. Then tell me how the only thing in danger is the fence. If you read the article, the bullets were penetrating the fence and god knows where they could have ended up. It's not like he was out on a paddock with nobody around.

          Properly trained cops do fire the first shot. They fire when there is a threat to life. If you were in a room with a gunman, and the gunman raised the weapon towards your head and moved his finger to the trigger, do you want them to wait until he shoots before opening fire? In this case, the teenager was warned MULTIPLE times, and he turned with a weapon raised. Good enough for me.

          The teenager was the one behaving stupidly and risking other peoples lives, so he is the one who deserves to suffer the consequences. Not some innocent cop who was only doing his job.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6Which is actually why toy guns marketed to children no longer look like real weapons.
    • CeeAyy, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6When was this time in America that you are talking about? It never existed. Don't shoot until you are shot at might be used sometimes in the military for political reasons, but it is horrible in terms of rules of engagement. It's a part of what was getting a lot of soldiers killed in Iraq.

      Let me get this right... there was a time that a police officer couldn't shoot until someone took aim and then fired? How ridiculous is that. He had to wait until they missed? Riiiiiiiiight....

      "...if you become a cop then your life is forfeit in the interest of protecting the civies..." -Abomonog

      Police officers do NOT swear to give up their lives to protect citizens. That is the standard for the secret service to protect the President. Police officers are expected to RISK their lives, not GIVE their lives. They are expected to be brave, not suicidal.

      I am having a hard time not calling you a moron, as I don't like name calling. You are the type of person people must be talking about when they claim that liberals are crazy or whatever people say. Please don't tell me that you identify yourself as a liberal. Whatever group you belong to, you are making a bad name for them.
    • 99er, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3What are you talking about? You know that fence the bullets ripped through? It's made out of wood... just like the walls that people were probably sleeping behind in the houses by the fence.

      There was NEVER a time where police in the US fired only after being fired on. That would be a ridiculous requirement. In this day and age with TV and movies, any 13 year old should know that if they're shooting off rounds at 2am in a neighborhood and someone yells at you to drop the gun... it's probably the cops and you'd better drop the damn gun.

      Besides... the gun in this case was a real gun... not a toy like you're using in your example.

      BTW- play this game: have a friend point his finger at you like a gun, and you do the same. Tell him to 'shoot' you by saying 'bang' whenever he decides to. Now, you say bang before he does. In other words, shoot him before he shoots you. You might get a 'bang' out part way into his bang, but he'll always beat you to it because you're reacting to his shot. Same thing with real guns. If you're waiting for them to start shooting at you, it might end up being too late. That's why no one (of reason) expects you to wait to be shot at before shooting when circumstances warrant it.
    • sugarazor, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2The kid turned to see who was yelling? Yeah, because the cops are totally silent upon their arrival to a scene, they don't have those things called sirens on their car or anything with the flashing red and blue lights. Seriously? That's the argument you want to use as to why the kid turned around?

      Everything else has been covered by someone else, but that just floored me.
    • WhiteRaven, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1Abomonog, that is just stupid.

      NO NO NO. Serving the people as an officer of the law does not strip from a person their basic right to self defense. *You* have a right to "shoot first" in self defense and the defense of others... why the hell would you insist that police officers do not have that right?
  • asaone, on 06/07/2008, -0/+31Point a gun at anyone and they have the right to defend them self, let alone a police officer.
    • wrboyce, on 06/07/2008, -16/+2"Let alone"? What makes a police offer so special? It's people with that mentality in the police force that is the problem. They're not super-beings, and they're not above the law.
      • 99er, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4Uhhh... what makes them so special in this case? How about training, experience, knowledge of the law? Duh.
    • davidhallstrom, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1Police officers are special. They put their lives on the line for us. They need and deserve extra consideration.
  • sendbillmoney, on 06/07/2008, -0/+931, He was told repeatedly to drop the weapon.
    2. He failed to drop the weapon, turning (beginning to turn, anyway) with weapon in hand.

    My sympathy level is zero.

    WTF is a 13 year old doing out at 2am, much less armed? Gross parental failure.
    • Elliuotatar, on 06/07/2008, -13/+1People don't think 13 year olds are wise enough to have sex, yet you expect a kid to make an instant decision that they should drop the gun before turning around to see who just yelled at him? He didn't even point the gun at the cop, he just turned around.

      If the cops were able to get behind this kid without him knowing he was there, and he was obviously shooting at a fence, then why didn't one of them simply shoot the kid with a taser rather than giving him the opportunity to turn around with the gun?
      • DrDabbles, on 06/07/2008, -0/+10You're an idiot. It's that simple.
      • daines88, on 06/07/2008, -0/+7You're an idiot, in the US from birth we are taught to always do what a police officer says. Thirteen years into this kids life, he knew to obey and chose not to.
      • sugarazor, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3Because the cop probably told him to drop the weapon and turn around... they don't tell someone to turn around with the weapon in hand and then drop it. The first order is always to eliminate the weapon because that's what can cause harm.

        As for using a taser, yeah, let's send volts of electricity through someone with a gun in their hand. You know, the kind of shock that would make a person's hands clamp shut and fire the weapon! Yeah, that's really safe!
      • kjackelen05, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1So you think it's a good idea, when a child is shooting a gun at a fence, for the police to sneak up behind him and electrocute him without warning?
    • Grolsch, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2Chappelle: hey baby baby go home man its 3 o clock in the mornin wat'da fuk u doin up baby?
      IM SELLIN WEED *****
  • smacksaw, on 06/07/2008, -20/+3It's pretty easy to say that the kid deserved it. Personally, I think it's a ***** copout. You don't know the whole story.

    If someone broke into your home and you fired your gun, chasing the intruder into the street when you realised they had kidnapped your child, if the cops reporting to the scene shot you, you'd deserve it, huh?

    Is it that hard to use your brain to extrapolate this situation? Did he have a valid reason to be shooting? Probably not. He might have been high on drugs fighting imaginary vampires for all I know. But to blindly side with the police that easily AND to say he deserved it? I can tell who have never raised teenagers. Teenagers are dumb. All of them. It's like saying a 5-year old is shorter than an adult or a baby ***** itself. It's just how they are. Teenagers do not have developed brains just like a 5-year old hasn't grown to adult size due to lack of puberty.

    Why do teenagers do this sort of stuff? Because they are TEENAGERS. They do stupid stuff all the time. It doesn't mean they deserve it, it means THEY ARE STUPID ***** TEENAGERS. Look at the music they listen to. Well, I guess they deserve that. But it's the only point I'll concede LOL
    • squarepegs, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3I know I shouldn't feel the trolls, but for the sake of reason: So yes, teenagers do stupid things without considering the consequences. But that's exactly why the police officer feared for his life when the gun was pointed at him.

      And if you go running through the streets with a gun, even if to chase an intruder, you're liable to be mistaken for the intruder yourself. So don't do it. That's also why we should NOT give all college students guns to prevent another Virginia Tech massacre. How would you know who's the real killer and who are the "good" guys with guns?
      • kirralin23, on 06/08/2008, -2/+1But if we don't allow students to carry guns you know who the good guys are because they're the ones bleeding out.
    • CeeAyy, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4I know enough of the story to say that he deserved to be shot for pointing a gun at a cop. You do realize that a CHILD had a loaded GUN don't you? He would deserve to be burned for going into a burning building and he would deserve to die for jumping off of a bridge and he would deserve getting bitten by a dog if he teased it.

      As for your scenario, if you are actively chasing a man while holding a gun and the police showed up and told you to drop the gun and you didn't, then yes, you'd deserve it. Oh, but what about the children... give me a break. So, in your scenario, who called the cops for your break in? How did they get there so fast? Why would you shoot at someone holding your child? Should I continue? It's a weak argument. I didn't even have to try hard. FAIL. The rules are simple... a cop asks you to drop your weapon and you drop it. Ummmkay.

      BTW, in NY, the parents should have been arrested for endangering the welfare of a minor and/or reckless endangerment.
    • summerain3, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3Yea, right. I guess it would have been better if that 13 year old had shot the Police Officer. Being a teenager is no excuse for shooting a gun in the middle of the night nor pointing a gun at an Police Officer that has a gun. Give us a break. Kids are taught that parents nor anyone else can discipline them: WRONG: Anyone interested, check it out on the Internet for your state. There is a civil code that says we can whip their tails but we cannot break bones nor ripe the hide off of them.
  • ysss, on 06/07/2008, -0/+24What a dumb kid, he was shooting some kind of gun (real or not??) at 3AM in the morning and after being told to drop the gun by an officer he turned to face the officer and RAISED THE DAMN GUN???

    • Elliuotatar, on 06/07/2008, -9/+3I don't understand why people are shocked at this.

      When someone yells at you, one's natural reaction is to turn around and look at them. "Drop the weapon" or not, we aren't programmed to simply instantly obey orders from a source we can't see. Even if a cop told me to freeze I would probably still unconciously try to turn around and look at him.

      I was once pulled over and super pissed at the cop for doing so, and without thinking I went to open my door to get out and yell at him. Thankfully I thought better of it before I got the door halfway open and shut it again, but I could have gotten shot myself. And why? Cause cops are too ***** trigger happy, and he just felt like questioning me.

      Normal people don't murder someone just because they're holding a gun or knife in their presence or fail to obey orders. Normal people wait until there is clear intent to attack them before retaliating. And normal people don't sneak up behind someone with a gun. A normal person would take cover and demand he drop the gun from there, or attempt to use the element of surprise to disarm the person.

      But not a cop. No, they're taught to put their own lives before those of the people they're sworn to serve and protect. They're taught to shoot a 13 year old kid who is obviously just having some ill-advised target practice, who doesn't know any better than to not turn around when ordered to drop his gun.

      The kid didn't raise the gun. He didn't even get the chance to turn around halfway. He was shot in the BACK, like that immigrant guy who took his wallet out to get his keys to open his apartment door not knowing there was a swat team coming up the stairs behind him.

      Cops are too ***** trigger happy.
      • Lyanto, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6"they're taught to put their own lives before those of the people they're sworn to serve and protect"

        Right, because they should risk being shot by a trigger-happy teen who's stupid enough to turn his entire body towards police officers, while holding a raised gun that he's been firing off for hours. What if he had missed during his "ill-advised target practice" and hit someone sleeping in their home? Police enforce the law and damn right they should put their own lives before those of criminals, even 13 year-olds, that pose a threat to them and to other civilians.

        Not all cops are trigger-happy. Getting really pissed off at one because he pulled you over? I'd have been more curious than angry. It seems like you just have a huge chip on your shoulder.
      • sugarazor, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3Cops tell people to drop the weapon before anything else. Freeze, drop the weapon, turn around slowly. The cop just didn't show up on the scene of a kid firing a gun and say, "hey look over here!" BANG!
      • Linzee82, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2"I was once pulled over and super pissed at the cop for doing so, and without thinking I went to open my door to get out and yell at him."

        Sounds to me like you need anger management therapy. Shouldn't you wait until someone has actually done something before you get pissed at them?
        • Elliuotatar, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1He did do something. He followed me at every turn for miles, and even waited for me when I stopped for gas. I don't normally get pissed at people or cops, but following me waiting till I did something wrong so he would have an excuse to pull me over? That's not the America I thought I grew up in.
        • Linzee82, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1@Elliuotatar - Okay. I can see getting mad at that. That's wrong and can be very frightening at times. (I had one do that at about midnight one night. Thankfully, I had a garage to pull into.) It just sounded like you were pissed that he pulled you over.

          But I don't think that you can say all cops are trigger happy because of that one incident. Yes, there are bad cops, but most of them just want to actually protect the innocent people without getting their own heads blown off by stupid kids.
    • BlueDawg5678, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3"at 3AM in the morning"

      As opposed to 3AM in the evening?
  • bermudianguy, on 06/07/2008, -0/+21Sorry epic fail for that kid , he had a handgun in his hand that he was allegedly repeatedly told to drop , he ignored the warnings of the officers and began a turn with the barrel of the gun which was possibly loaded raised towards the police officers. In my opinion and with the facts presented in the article I have to say the Police are in the right here and any attempt to say other wise is just stupidity.
  • diablozx9, on 06/07/2008, -2/+27- Isnt it illegal for a 13 year old to have a gun?
    - Isnt it illegal to point a gun at a cop?
    - Isnt it about the only way a cop can defend himself once a gun is pointed at him/her ?

    Think about this one,, being shop will seem like a walk in the park after the
    kid gets locked up with a bunch of badder dudes who will quickly
    put him in his place.
    • azimir, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5Just to answer your three points:

      - No, a 13 year old may have a gun. In many municipalities the firearm is still "owned" by the parents, but merely having a gun isn't a crime. Now, having it in public and shooting within city limits *is* normally illegal.
      - Yes, pointing a gun at anyone who isn't threatening your life is a crime. At minimum it's brandishing.
      - No, but the safest one for the officer is to shoot first and I don't blame them.
  • Joshper85, on 06/07/2008, -22/+5an other fine example of why hand guns should be outlawed in the US!!!
    • dynelol, on 06/07/2008, -2/+4You're astonishingly stupid. Thankfully, i'm already sitting.
  • FUR10N, on 06/07/2008, -1/+14that's why he's an 8-year vet
  • Reodor, on 06/07/2008, -2/+18Kid got what he deserved ;)

    I blame the parents :P
  • Betrayer, on 06/07/2008, -2/+20its called population control , (the dumb ones die off first.)

    you dont want the Stupid breeding more stupids....(we have enough as it is)
    • kingofkolt, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4Darwin Award, my friend.

      (Although, unfortunately, it's always the stupid ones that breed the most... like that 18-kid family out in Arkansas.)
    • jasmus, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Opening scene of Idiocracy. That actually scared me, as I thought about it more.
  • exscape, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4WTF? Kids these days.
  • nyos, on 06/07/2008, -1/+12I'm grew up in this ***** dump of a suburb. 13 yr old pointing guns at 1 in the morning? No shock here. It's not so much the parents' fault as it is the culture of stupidity these kids grow up in. Not to say the kid isn't to blame, at some point you take responsibility for your actions. He got three bullets, and he deserved every one of them.
  • troycott, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5and this is news because.... the cop didn't kill him?
  • AveryDeDog, on 06/07/2008, -2/+21The officer should shoot the parents, too.
  • cfuse, on 06/07/2008, -0/+12Things are exactly as they should be - you point a gun at a cop, you get shot. Age isn't a factor, nothing is a factor.
  • tjlsmith, on 06/07/2008, -2/+11Good job, cops. The kid had it coming.
  • crackberri, on 06/07/2008, -5/+7It’s a shame the cop didn't get any head shots.......
  • iguanapunk, on 06/07/2008, -10/+4A friend of mine was in a simular situation; in all the the panic he was waving his gun at the police but they didn't open fire because the English police aren't so trigger happy (unless you have a tan/beard).
    • gquaglia, on 06/07/2008, -3/+6English police are pussies. And don't they call them Bobbies?
      • Steeple, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2ha, seriously, you should come over and try it out, no one will ever find your body (though there will be an extensive inquiry)
    • lirem, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6Your friend is either a moron or a liar. The same applies to you.
      • Elliuotatar, on 06/07/2008, -7/+3English police didn't even have GUNS on them until a few years ago. England is totally different, and BETTER than the US when it comes to policing. English cops realise not every random person on the street is out to murder them.
        • kingofkolt, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4Teehee... 'and BETTER than the US'... teehee... I love the maturity level up in hurr.
    • jjmelch, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3By all rights the kid in the story and your friend should be dead. I would much rather risk or take either of their lives than any cop's.
  • n0gnuz, on 06/07/2008, -0/+10Timothy Thomas rule: If you've been out buying/selling drugs in a high-crime neighborhood in the middle of the night and running from the cops, don't make a grab for the front of your fashionably-baggy pants, or you will get shot.

    Corollary 1: If you've been shooting a handgun in a residential neighborhood in the middle of the night, don't turn rapidly to point your gun at the cops, you will get shot.
  • pingudownunder, on 06/07/2008, -1/+8Yep. All credit to the cop here. Shame he didn't shoot the kid in the 'nads.
  • summerain3, on 06/07/2008, -6/+2The parents should be held responsible for their son's actions. I work for an alternative school, mostly in the middle school and that is one tough place to be, not just for the students but for anyone that deals with them; especially if parents take the easy way out and do not try to manage their children's behavior. YES, I mean manage.
    Sure kids have minds of their own, and that's what gets them into trouble when they are not given direction on how to manage their actions, meaning, thoughts, feelings, emotions, desires, etc.
    There was a student in one of my classes that would play with himself through his pockets in the classroom. When the teacher would look up/around (I'm a Teacher's Assistant) he would stop doing what he was showing me. Then later he would taunt me by laughing and try to talk to me about it. I could not get anyone to listen. He was suppose to be the school's best citizen, an example for the other students to look up too and follow. I was new to the school and he thought he was getting by with his own business. NOT TRUE: By no one coming to his aide (I told six(6) different people in order of authority) it is as if someone threw this child away. This child is at least 6ft 3ins tall, some child. He looks like an adult until you get close to him and can sense how young he is. I have four sons, only lost one. He is now 48 and he still has not found himself. He is my stepson and I was not allowed to correct him, it was awful. Believe me, I tried, I called every agency I could find; but was told nothing could be done unless the parents, one or both, would file a complaint. He too got throw away.
    Back to this young kid. What would any of us do if someone pointed a gun at us, me, I am 65 years old, I would shoot first and ask questions later. In order to learn what not to do comes with a high price for most of us. I stand with the police officer and I don't even like policemen,
    • Elliuotatar, on 06/07/2008, -5/+1Well first of all, I wouldn't have a gun. I'm not religious, but most people are, and what part of thou shalt not kill don't you understand?

      Second of all, if I saw someone with a gun walking around at 3am, I would get my ass as far away from them as possible. And if they pointed it at me, trying to beat them to the draw is the worst possible move you could make. Now you're basically forcing them to shoot you first. I would put my hands in the air and move slowly as I gave them my wallet, and they would probably let me live.

      The only time shoot first works is when you have the element of surprise and shoot someone before you know that they intend to kill you, or the person you're killing has no intention of killing you.
      • adminmatt, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3you're an idiot. there are other ways of getting killed than a gun, owning a gun doesn't mean you kill, or have the intention to go and kill some one. protecting ones life and the lives of others has no resemblance to killing some. its stupid to make that assumption.

        "they would probably let me live"
        did you even read what you wrote? probably? i would rather have certainty by shooting first than probably. surrendering is a good alternative if you have no means of protection, but that should not be a choice for an officer.
        • Elliuotatar, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1You have a better chance of being killed by getting into a gunfight, than if you just hand over your money. This isn't just me saying this. This is your beloved police officers saying this. Over and over. Every time some guy is a hero "It ended well this time, but we don't reccomend others do this."
        • kirralin23, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2There is a huge difference between a police officer and a civilian getting mugged. And civilians get killed getting mugged, whether they cooperate or not. The police don't have the option of getting away as fast as possible. They have to neutralize the threat before someone gets killed. Maybe this kid was going to shoot the cop and maybe not. But he was turning towards the officer with a weapon he had been firing. That is forcing the officer to shoot first.
    • flexgrip, on 06/08/2008, -0/+0No one should have to be responsible for anyone else's actions. Some times your kids are ***** up and there is nothing you can do about it.

      You need to stop going to church and chasing a fairytale ending to a pathetic 65 year old life of nothing but divorce, trailer parks, and always having to go to the laundromat because you are too broke to buy your own washer and dryer OR the trailer court you live in doesn't offer the hook-ups.

      Maybe before you open your old timing, bitch ass mouth to spew out garbage like this that you heard on conservative talk radio, you should take a second to remove Tyrone's HIV CARRYING, ***** DICK.

      How many ugly, disease infested, ***** little mixed kids do you have playing in your yard right now? I bet it is a lot, considering you sit your pathetic old ass on DIGG saying retarded stuff... probably sitting on your porch with a gigantic old laptop, WAITING for your opportunity to sound wise and fit in somewhere.

      Do me a favor and encourage your family to not have children. I have a feeling that the down syndrome bullet wont just graze them like it did you.

      *****.
      • summerain3, on 06/08/2008, -0/+0You, whoever you are, are an idiot.
  • SCYellowhammer, on 06/07/2008, -8/+4I understand the kid was 13, but HE HAD A GUN and was ONLY shot 3 times. What's up with young men being shot 40 -50 times with NO GUN WHATSOEVER?
  • GofG, on 06/07/2008, -9/+2I personally would like to know why the shots hit the kid in the back, and not the stomach.

    Highly suspicious.
    • trp5023, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6As was mentioned earlier, the kid was shot as he turned. read the article.
      • brokencrystal, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1So it the kid turned, why did he shoot him THREE times? He was only 13. One bullet would have taken him down.
      • kirralin23, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1The police are trained to fire shots in groups of three.
    • punkcat, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5apparently you are not interested to know enough to read the article.
  • mayhemchaos, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5Houston on Digg again....for more stupid people. Man I love my city!!!1!
    • tastypastry, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3Haha no *****. And I've only lived here 3 years.
  • Barbrady, on 06/07/2008, -1/+7Stupid kid is lucky to be alive. That's what he gets for turning around to an officer with a raised weapon. Hopefully the ***** learned a valuable lesson to teach to his other worthless friends.
  • p51d007, on 06/07/2008, -3/+2If they find out the gun belongs to the parent, the stupid parent should be locked up for "allowing access" to the weapon. Yeah, I know times are tough, but this is WHY you don't leave CHILDREN home alone.
    If the kid survives, I think he learned a lesson. If you have a gun in your hand, and a police officer says drop it, DO NOT TURN TOWARD the officer. On a lighter note, the officer involved needs to go to the firing range a little more for not dropping the kid dead!
    • kirralin23, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1Perhaps the officer wanted to live, but was hoping he wouldn't kill the kid.
  • Napalmhaze, on 06/07/2008, -12/+2Erm whatever with the comments, the kid is 13! No one on Digg was there, yet everyone is so quick to judge and say "oh he got what was coming to him"

    The story reads like, kid finds daddys gun, parents arent around, kid goes into yard to play with gun. Cops show up while kid is playing around, kid turns to face cops to see who the *****, then gets shot by twitchy paranoid cop with no clue!

    I'd much rather the cop got shot first before the kid. If he's a 13 year old he doesnt fully understand how to react, how to behave in this situation.

    But hey its so easy for the Digg army to judge the situation from their office chairs. 13 year old kids are stupid by nature, they make mistakes, they test the boundaries, they live and they learn.

    To say that the kid deserved it is utter lunacy!
    • MortVent, on 06/07/2008, -2/+813 years old = he is old enough to know better to play with a firearm

      what the kid did was stupid

      A cop has to make a split second decision arriving on a scene where gun shots have been fired, it's dark, and he sees a suspect ignoring the order to drop the gun begin to turn with said gun raised

      There is no way he isn't going to shoot, age of the suspect does not enter the equation in a world where there are kids that kill



    • npowel, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3I'm sorry, but I don't think that the whole "kids will be kids" thing applies to a 13 year old kid shooting a loaded, real gun at 2am in the morning.

      Personally, I'd prefer to be reading this headline instead of "Cop killed by gun-wielding child". The officer would have been an idiot to take no action upon having a loaded gun (which is clearly being freely fired) pointed at him.
    • Napalmhaze, on 06/07/2008, -2/+1I think y'all forgotten what its like to be 13! Of course its dumb for the kid to have been messing with a firearm, I'm sure you did stuff just as stupid when you were a kid, I know I did!

      But can you really expect a 13 year old to know what to do when confronted by a cop like that?

      Maybe the kid was gonna shoot the cop, but maybe he wasnt. None of you lot know the answer! But to say the kid deserved it? Thats a stretch when you dont know the facts!
    • Yage2006, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3Sorry but even at 13 you should have some ***** common sense.
      If your that dumb then you will get removed from the gene pool one way or another.
    • tehbored, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3I'm not going to say the kid deserved it, but it was certainly his fault.
    • kirralin23, on 06/08/2008, -2/+2This kid is suffering the logical consequences of his actions. By the age of 13 his is plenty old enough to understand logical consequences. Luckily he didn't suffer the logical consequence of killing someone in their home. There is a reason for the law that doesn't allow you to fire a weapon within city limits. My nine year old would know better. I feel sorry for the cop. It's a terrible thing when you have to shoot another person. I hope the perp (the kid) lives.
  • adougy, on 06/07/2008, -1/+8Sounds like he was doing his job.
  • randmcnally, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0I mean stupid kid and all but why do cops always have to shoot more than one round? one would have done it. three left him in critical condition.
  • VooDooBrAnMaN, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Thats what you get when you point a gun at a police officer. I'm not saying he deserved it. That is just what happens when you do things like that. It doesnt matter if you are an old woman or a thirteen year old boy.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.